On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 09:31:51 -0500 Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
> > > Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you
> > > intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent
> > > releases GPLv2 only.
> >
> > Only if all the copyright holders agree. Suppose A has accepted
> > contributions from B, with the "or later" option, and it turns out
> > that A does not approve of v3. Now B refuses to drop this, so A is
> > effectively forced to distribute his code under a license he does
> > not approve of.
>
> No, if you get code as "GPLv2 or later", you can pick either GPLv2 or
> pick something later. In your example, A can say "I pick GPLv2" and
> make a GPLv2 fork. It's like dual licensing. At least, that's what the
> Debian FAQ says :-)
It seems to me that you are right.
I can accept contributions under "GPLv2 or later" and then decide I want
to accept them under "GPLv2 only": once I begin to release new versions
(or forks...) under "GPLv2 only" no one (apart from the totality of the
copyright holders!) can revert back to "GPLv2 or later" or switch to
GPLv3.
But... there is a "but".
See below!
>
> > I'd be very cautious about placing my code at the hands of a third
> > party in such a manner, and I think it is unfortunate that so many
> > authors release code under the GPL (with "or later" option), without
> > properly considering the implications.
>
> I guess it comes down to whether those copyright holders trust the FSF
> to not totally screw it up. I'd think they would have to do something
> really bad with the GPLv3 for this to be a problem.
Well, I learned the "trust no 1" rule the hard way, by following the
unfortunate GFDL affair... :-(
[That is to say: I used to trust the FSF to always write and promote
Free and good licenses, but then I learned about the issues with the
GFDL and changed my mind...]
>
> Consider an extreme case. Suppose GPLv3 is non-free, propietary.
>
> That means that your "GPLv2 or later" work is now dual licensed:
> GPLv2/proprietary
>
> But that is still free. It's like MySQL for example (GPL/proprietary).
> As long as the GPLv2 is an option, the work is free.
Proprietary means less freedoms to the public, more rights reserved for
the copyright holders.
So that would not be an issue, as long as the public can still choose to
redistribute and/or modify the work under the GPLv2.
Pains could instead arise, in the opposite case (that is if GPLv3 is
*more* permissive than GPLv2).
Suppose GPLv3 is a non-copyleft license (let's say GPLv3 becomes
equivalent to 2-clause BSD).
I really doubt FSF would do such a move, but let's assume it does for
the sake of example simplicity.
Maybe you chose the "GPLv2 or later" because you *want* copyleft and do
not want anyone be permitted to proprietarize your work: bang! they pick
GPLv3 and create a proprietary derivative work!
You cannot prevent this for already released versions, only for future
ones (by switching to "GPLv2 only")... :-(
Now a more concrete example.
Suppose GPLv3 allows something similar to GFDL "Invariant Sections" to
be included in the work.
Maybe you chose the "GPLv2 or later" because you believe that a Free
work should *not* include unmodifiable and unremovable parts: bang! they
pick GPLv3 and create a non-free derivative work containing some such
parts!
You cannot prevent this for already released versions, and, if you want
to incorporate some useful modifications from that derivative work back
to your official version, you cannot, unless you switch to "GPLv3
or later" *and* include the "Invariant Sections" (that you will never be
able to drop!). :-(
To conclude, IMHO, it's a matter of trust.
Release under "GPLv2 or later" if you trust the FSF to never screw
things up with future GPL versions.
Release under "GPLv2 only" if you don't.
Of course, this is valid as long as you like GPLv2: if you don't, choose
another license (but, please, choose a DFSG-free and possibly
GPL-compatible one!). ;-)
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpLFcthcYW01.pgp
Description: PGP signature